My baby is 6 months old and when the time comes I want him to have three separate vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella. I wondered if anyone knew of anywhere in Sheffield or close by (closer than London) where this could be carried out.

Just as an aside, I heard on the news the other day that reported cases of measles have increased dramatically this year.

A BBC news report http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/5084698.stm shows 450 people have contracted measles already this year, the largest number since monitoring began.

My son contracted measles as a result of his MMR jab and was very ill. I didn't allow him to have the booster jab for fear of a re-occurance. I also know of a young child who has measles at the moment.

I'm sorry to hear that your son was so ill - do you think with hindsight you would have paid to have the three separate jabs? I know its all speculation and media hype but I am very worried about the MMR as i'm sure lots of other parents are.

Just as an aside, I heard on the news the other day that reported cases of measles have increased dramatically this year.

A BBC news report http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/5084698.stm shows 450 people have contracted measles already this year, the largest number since monitoring began.

My son contracted measles as a result of his MMR jab and was very ill. I didn't allow him to have the booster jab for fear of a re-occurance. I also know of a young child who has measles at the moment.
Yes, I read the news about an outbreak of Measles,but I thought it was because the babies had not had the MMR jab, and not because of it.Im not very up on these things now as my kids are grown up,but it would be interesting to hear other views.

I think the outbreak of measles is because of parents not having their children immunised. I think my son was just very very unlucky to have such a bad time as a result of his MMR jab.

rolypie, I never even gave single vaccines a thought to be honest. I doubt it would have made a difference.

Our son is due to have his measles, mumps and rubella vaccine in three or four months.
Using the 'no smoke without fire' and 'why take a chance' sort of logic, we asked the health visitor if we could have the vaccinations done singly (private) but she said that 'it was not available round here'

Bit strange - would have thought any number of GPs would have been up for making a few extra quid doing this :confused:

Can anyone help? we don't mind travelling a reasonable distance to have it done.

N.B - not wishing to re-open the MMR debate. Just need to find someone that can do the job.

Any help appreciated.

Draggle

If you find anywhere, then you should also consider how far apart you get them done, and whether to actually have the first one at such a young age as the MMR is normally given.

Looks like you can e-mail these guys for a full list of providers in the UK. http://www.jabs.org.uk/

A few points to bear in mind: The single vaccines are not licensed for use in the UK. Delaying vaccination as KenH suggests leaves children vulnerable to the diseases being vaccinated against. Getting single vaccines requires 6 jabs to provide any protection, so bear in mind if the clinic is a distance away you're going to have to make a repeat visit.

I've got nothing against single vaccines, I think all parents should be able to make an informed decision about how they wish to be vaccinated, so long as they are responsible enough to make sure all the jabs are carried through. Far better that than the irresponsible parents who decide not to have their children vaccinated at all :thumbsup:

There was a centre in Sheffield that provided the single vaccines but it was shut down when they found out they were not administering the vaccines correctly and they weren't working.

...N.B - not wishing to re-open the MMR debate. Just need to find someone that can do the job....
There is no debate, MMR is safe, stop adding to the smoke and get it done !

By dragging out the process through single jabs you are putting your child at extra risk.

There is no debate, MMR is safe, stop adding to the smoke and get it done !

By dragging out the process through single jabs you are putting your child at extra risk.

He has obviously looked into it and might not agree. I haven't made up my mid about whether it is dangerous or not, but I do know that there are no reports of the vaccines being dangerous when given singly. The NHS could stop the fuss overnight by replacing the multiple vaccine with single doses or at least do so on request. This would then mean that everyone gets vaccinated.

He has obviously looked into it and might not agree. I haven't made up my mid about whether it is dangerous or not, but I do know that there are no reports of the vaccines being dangerous when given singly. The NHS could stop the fuss overnight by replacing the multiple vaccine with single doses or at least do so on request. This would then mean that everyone gets vaccinated.
No it wouldn't, it would mean that many children remain unvaccinated as their parents will fail to take them on 3 trips to get all 3 vaccines done; preventing this was one of the motivations behind introducing a combination vaccine.

No it wouldn't, it would mean that many children remain unvaccinated as their parents will fail to take them on 3 trips to get all 3 vaccines done; preventing this was one of the motivations behind introducing a combination vaccine.

But the kinds of people who are concerned enough to seek out single vaccines ARE the sort of people who would go to three appointments.

But the kinds of people who are concerned enough to seek out single vaccines ARE the sort of people who would go to three appointments.
What grounds do you have to make that claim? I see no reason to why people who allow themselves to be scared into exposing their children to a certain risk of deadly disease because of an imaginary fear of a safe vaccine would be any less likely to fail to make necessary trips to the doctor than anybody else.

But the kinds of people who are concerned enough to seek out single vaccines ARE the sort of people who would go to three appointments.
It's not just down to wether they attend, the extra length of time the course takes leaves children vulnerable for longer...

...the whole thing is sheer stupidity...

...and if people really had looked into the subject properly, then threads like this one wouldn't exist in the first place.

:suspect:

What grounds do you have to make that claim? I see no reason to why people who allow themselves to be scared into exposing their children to a certain risk of deadly disease because of an imaginary fear of a safe vaccine would be any less likely to fail to make necessary trips to the doctor than anybody else.
Exactly !

:thumbsup:

im sure draggletail asked for this thread not too turn into a debate maybe you should respect that like people should respect one anothers views :)

No it wouldn't, it would mean that many children remain unvaccinated as their parents will fail to take them on 3 trips to get all 3 vaccines done; preventing this was one of the motivations behind introducing a combination vaccine.

6 appointments. 3 initial jabs then 3 pre-school boosters a few years later, meaning six lots of side effects.

I do know that there are no reports of the vaccines being dangerous when given singly.

The single vaccines in the UK are not licensed and have therefore never been tested against the British safety requirements. Hence there is even less evidence that the single jabs are safe than the MMR.

Somebody I know went to leeds to have the single jabs, because they have autism in the family, so they weren't willing to take the risk.

im sure draggletail asked for this thread not too turn into a debate maybe you should respect that like people should respect one anothers views :)
Thanks Rachy - I was just about to reply with the same comment when I saw your post.

I am requesting specific information foo_fighter, not opening a debate.

There is a separate thread dedicated to the debate of this subject.

Thanks,

Draggle.

...I am requesting specific information foo_fighter, not opening a debate.

There is a separate thread dedicated to the debate of this subject...

No, by dragging the subject up you are adding to "the smoke"...

...if you want to find a bit of info', do a google search (or similar), don't stoke the fire on a forum where people might believe this rubbish.

:help:

Do you think I haven't already googled it :loopy:
I found nothing in Yorkshire by googling.
And the best way to find things out locally is to ask local people.

Now, I would normally ask what makes you a god almighty authority on the subject, but as I said I am not opening up the debate. Nor am I adding smoke to the fire.

you're doing a good enough job of it on your own.

In fact please stop, and kindly but out of my thread.

No, by dragging the subject up you are adding to "the smoke"...

...if you want to find a bit of info', do a google search (or similar), don't stoke the fire on a forum where people might believe this rubbish.

:help:

You shouldn't call it rubbish. History is full od instances of doctors telling us that something is harmless until they change their mind. People can make their own mind up and then get single or multiple vaccines as they see fit. The outrageous behaviour by people like you thinking you know better means that single vaccines are hard to get and so people have no vaccine at all as they will prefer the disease to the chance of getting autism. I have had measles, mumps but not rubella and I can say that it is better having these diseases than having autism.

...we asked the health visitor if we could have the vaccinations done singly (private) but she said that 'it was not available round here'

Bit strange - would have thought any number of GPs would have been up for making a few extra quid doing this :confused:

OK, back to the begining, since it's confusing some of you...

...ask yourself "why are so many health proffesionals unwilling to treat my child with the single vacine ?"

:huh:

Sorry about this - posted in error. I was meaning tp PM the OP
My baby is 6 months old and when the time comes I want him to have three separate vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella. I wondered if anyone knew of anywhere in Sheffield or close by (closer than London) where this could be carried out.

You shouldn't call it rubbish. History is full od instances of doctors telling us that something is harmless until they change their mind. People can make their own mind up and then get single or multiple vaccines as they see fit. The outrageous behaviour by people like you thinking you know better means that single vaccines are hard to get and so people have no vaccine at all as they will prefer the disease to the chance of getting autism. I have had measles, mumps but not rubella and I can say that it is better having these diseases than having autism.
Do you not realise that measles can be fatal and that children who didn't receive the triple vaccine have already died as a result of their parents falling for these baseless scare stories? Measles kills that is most certainly worse than autism.

Talk of what is and isn't worse than autism is irrelivant anyway as there is no credible evidence of a link between the mmr jab and autism. There is however a definite link between not having the jab and dieing.

I am past the age of having to worry about this for my children.....they are now well into adulthood. Obviously when it came into the remit for my grandchildren I kept my fingers crossed.

We have never had a definitive answer from the Bliars on this.....and it speaks volumes. Was Leo subjected to the MMR Jab or not?

The answer from Bliar " it is an intrusion on personal Medical Privacy!" was a load of b*****ks as far as I'm concerned. An utterly disgraceful response for parents who are worried.

There is a private GP on Whitham Road at Broomhill or more predictably you can go up to Leeds.
http://www.nuffieldhospitals.org.uk/az_showserviceathosp.asp?sid=1232&hid=12

Do you not realise that measles can be fatal and that children who didn't receive the triple vaccine have already died as a result of their parents falling for these baseless scare stories? Measles kills that is most certainly worse than autism.

Talk of what is and isn't worse than autism is irrelivant anyway as there is no credible evidence of a link between the mmr jab and autism. There is however a definite link between not having the jab and dieing.

Deaths from measles are very rare an not necessarily stoipped by having the vaccine. In fact many people get diseases who have vaccines, it just makes it less likely. The protective effect of a vaccine is in everyone else having it so that the disease doesn't get to you.

I really don't know where people get off by being so desperate for everyone to have atriple vaccine when the people who are worried about this will quite happily have individual vaccines. Where is the mentality in telling everyone that we must have the vaccine because you think it is safe. No doubt we had doctors telling people that asbestos was perfectly safe, or rather there was no evidence it wasn't for many years.

There is a private GP on Whitham Road at Broomhill or more predictably you can go up to Leeds.
http://www.nuffieldhospitals.org.uk/az_showserviceathosp.asp?sid=1232&hid=12

Tony - thanks very much for that, and twiglet too :thumbsup:

Now that I now have some leads, I am happy for you to close the thread, given that some people are ignoring my wishes by turning this into a debate :loopy:

Draggle

The single vaccines in the UK are not licensed and have therefore never been tested against the British safety requirements. Hence there is even less evidence that the single jabs are safe than the MMR.

Since the combined jab is relatively knew it's fairly basic logic to deduce that single vaccines were used in the past, and therefore must have been tested and met the safety standards.

Theres lots of thought now that the MMR scare was just that. Even Dr Wakefield who did the research is now either up on or about to be up on charges with the BMA.
Being in Sheffield I bet many can remember the southern Doctor who had a clinic up here charging about 1 upper and 1 lower limb for the single vaccines. Turned out his vaccines were useless (I think they were for the wrong strain and kept in conditions which rendered them even more useless), his business folded and I think he underwent criminal investigation.

So you've 3 choices
1.MMR no proven evidence that its unsafe, protects against measles.
2.Risk getting measles/mumps or rubella definitely bad for health and an increase predicted.
3.Look for single vaccines - how effective are they?

I've been thro it myself and understand you'd do nything to protect them. My youngest was going to go to the single vaccine guy, just before he got stopped. In the end he had the MMR and we had no hesitation with his brother.

Whatever your choice, good luck

I'm not sure how it works but my niece has just had hers back in birmingham from her GP. My brother went into the doctors and they booked her as a private patient for the procedure, but as i said i dont know how the PCT deal with it here. Just go and ask at your GP's surgery.

Since the combined jab is relatively knew it's fairly basic logic to deduce that single vaccines were used in the past, and therefore must have been tested and met the safety standards.

Mumps was never given as a single vaccine. Rubella was only given to girls, and only at around age 12, so before MMR the three different vaccines had not all been given individually and not in such close proximity to one another.

I'm hoping that Don_Kiddick won't mind me posting this link to his considered opinion on the subject, as a health professional, and the father of an autistic child.
http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=267088&postcount=5

Mumps was never given as a single vaccine. Rubella was only given to girls, and only at around age 12, so before MMR the three different vaccines had not all been given individually and not in such close proximity to one another.

Right. So we didn't use to vacinate for Mumps nor boys for Rubella.

So how come they need the vacinnation now and the world will end if parents are so selfish as to deny them?

Right. So we didn't use to vacinate for Mumps nor boys for Rubella.

So how come they need the vacinnation now and the world will end if parents are so selfish as to deny them?


We didn't used to vaccinate for anything in the days before Jenner noticed that milk maids didn't get Smallpox.


And people died all the time from things we now don't give a second thought to.

What were the fatality rate for children from rubella/mumps in the years before the vacinations started?

He has obviously looked into it and might not agree. I haven't made up my mid about whether it is dangerous or not, but I do know that there are no reports of the vaccines being dangerous when given singly. The NHS could stop the fuss overnight by replacing the multiple vaccine with single doses or at least do so on request. This would then mean that everyone gets vaccinated.

I am pretty well totally convinced that MMR is nothing to do with autism. The scientists who first mooted a connection are now discredited and isn't one of them up for publishing fraudulent results?

Right. So we didn't use to vacinate for Mumps nor boys for Rubella.

So how come they need the vacinnation now and the world will end if parents are so selfish as to deny them?


Um, because mumps and Rubella used to be a big problem perhaps?? No the world wont end, but in the last few decades contagious diseases such as these have not been a problem, thanks to the vaccinations. Now that people are choosing not to vaccinate their kids, they are sharply on the increase, for those with vaccinations as well as those without (these vaccinations only work on whole populations - if a diesase is allowed to develop in small pockets of unvaccinated people, it will spread to the vaccinated ones too).

I wasn't around in the pre-vaccination days, but I've heared stories from older relatives of how mumps and measles were horrific diesaes causing wide-spread debilitation and deaths. Ok, so relatively few people die from measles, and the severness of attack can vary, but you increase the number of people contracting the disease, you increase the number that are going to die from it. simple as that.

I've not done any research into the separate vaccines, so don't know about that, but I do know that there is no credible evidence to link the MMr with Autism - it comes from the fact that the MMR is given at roughly the same time as autism is first diagnosed in kids.
It would be like concludingthat babies learn to talk because they've learnt to walk - the two are unrelated but happen at roughly the same time (I think - this may be a bad example, i don't know that much about baby development!).

it is far riskier to not vaccinate your kids - so do it!!

I know it was asked not to have the MMR debate, but it's important, so I'm saying this anyway:P

What were the fatality rate for children from rubella/mumps in the years before the vacinations started?

I don't know, but the internet is at hand so I'm sure you could tell us.

I do know that mumps can cause infertility if you contract it after puberty, and rubella (german measles) can cause birth defects if contracted by a pregant woman (which is why girls used to be immunised at age 12).

The reason for immunising boys and girls at a young age is so that there is no rubella (or mumps, or measles) around for you to catch.

This is how smallpox was eradicated.

I'm of the opinion that there are a small group of children who are 'at risk' from this jab. Whilst the majority of kids are perfectly safe to have the MMR, I would side with the parents of any child who already has autism (or related problems) in the family who want to have separate vaccinations.

The main reason the medical profession cannot accept this scenario is that any child displaying autistic 'symptoms' after an MMR jab will sue the NHS for squillions, even though it can never be proved that they would or wouldn't be autistic anyway.

If I have kids, they won't be getting MMR. My family has 2 identified 'gifted' members, and some dubious cases who have never been assessed.

I myself know that the 'daydreaming' I was accused of as a child was actually symptomatic of autism (without going into reams of explanation on detail). It scares me to think that an outside influence could have tipped me over the precipice of no return, instead of developing into a (relatively) normal human being :(

I don't know, but the internet is at hand so I'm sure you could tell us.

I do know that mumps can cause infertility if you contract it after puberty, and rubella (german measles) can cause birth defects if contracted by a pregant woman (which is why girls used to be immunised at age 12).

The reason for immunising boys and girls at a young age is so that there is no rubella (or mumps, or measles) around for you to catch.

This is how smallpox was eradicated.

that only works if a worldwide campaign is launched, action in the uk alone will never eradicate it.

Anyone considering single vaccines might want to read the following report:

http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/Vaccines/noMMR.html

The study detailed in the link above covered many thousands of people. Japan used MMR between 1989 and 1993 only, and have since only used single vaccines. This research shows that the incidence of autism among children vaccinated with the single vaccines is actually higher than those vaccinated with MMR when that was in use. The incidence of autism in Japan has risen just as it has also risen in countries that continue to use MMR.

I studied Autism at University so when original research was published I looked at it with great interest and other lines of research. The research is based on bad science and doesn't stand up. Occassionally children do get ill from measles vaccinations but what happened before they did vaccinations was like playing Russian Roulete with your child. The reasons that many special schools are closing is there are not the number of children with brain heart sight and hearing problems which were caused by Measles and mothers contracting Rubella. If you don't Vaccinate your children with your G.P. you cannot be sure the Vaccines are safe or effective. All three of my children have had the triple vaccine in spite of our family having had allergic reaction. They've just lost a Grandad who had a lifetime of breathlessness and Lung disease due to contracting Measles as a child. Why gamble your child's life on a Tabloid Headline. Get the MMR.

Mrs. downtroad runs the best and biggest not for profit school for autism in Chicago. So we basically live and breathe autism. The debate in America is far more advanced. The Wakefield study concentrated on the vaccine causing inflammatory bowel disease. At the moment the big debate is about Thimerosol in vaccines. Thimerosol has Mercury in the vaccine, and the links to autism and Mercury become stronger every day. So potentially giving a child three vaccines would triple the amount of Mercury the child is exposed to by vaccines.

However the current research suggest no link to Thimerosol either. A much strong link has been found between Mercury in the environment, along with a genetic factor that means children with autism do not excrete heavy metals in same way as typical children. Autistic children tend to have far less Mercury in their hair, and far more in their teeth, showing a difference in excretion and detoxification.

The Mercury found in Thimerosol is Ethyl Mercury. The Mercury found in the environment is Methyl Mercury, which is far more neuro-toxic. Studies have been completed that show dangerous amounts of Mercury in the umbilical chords of pregnant women. Some hypothesis this may also be a factor in the rise of ADHD and other developmental issues in Children.

So the bottom line is, even if Thimerosol is a factor in some forms in the autism spectrum (we not call it a spectrum as there are several types, which may have different causations), the bigger issue is Mercury in the environment. We are now at a stage where our seas are so polluted; pregnant women are advised not to eat certain kinds of fish during pregnancy, even though fish are extremely good for us. Mercury cannot be vacuumed up, and it last in the environment for an extremely long time. So while the debate rages on about vaccines we pump huge amount of Mercury in to the environment, a problem far more difficult to fix than switching vaccines.

Parents need to wake up to these facts and start to lobby government as soon as possible.

Some links;

Thimerosol was removed form vaccines in Canada in 1998. There has not been a reduction in Autism, in fact there has been an increase.

http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=bc8253e7-ec6f-4bbd-a01c-5295b731d3f9&k=7417

A study in Texas shows a direct correlation between the amount of Mercury pumped in to the environment and prevalence of Autism.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16338635&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

Children with autism disorders in the San Francisco Bay Area were 50% more likely to be born in neighborhoods with high amounts of several toxic air contaminants, particularly mercury, according to a first-of-its-kind study by the California Department of Health Services.

http://www.healthsentinel.com/news.php?id=1484&title=Study+Links+Air+Pollutants+With+Autism&event=news_print_list_item

The internet is full of bad advice by people with agendas, or just misinformed. PubMed is a great site that allows you to search through the best and latest peer reviewed research.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=pubmed

I don't know, but the internet is at hand so I'm sure you could tell us.

I do know that mumps can cause infertility if you contract it after puberty, and rubella (german measles) can cause birth defects if contracted by a pregant woman (which is why girls used to be immunised at age 12).

The reason for immunising boys and girls at a young age is so that there is no rubella (or mumps, or measles) around for you to catch.

This is how smallpox was eradicated.
A problem has arisen with large outbreaks of mumps in recent years because those of us over the age of about 22 are all likely to have had mumps as children (and be immune) and those under around 15 were immunised so we were left with one vulnerable group of adults. Immunisations for mumps and rubella in my opinion are not necessary in very young children, I'm guessing they are done at this age because it improves the immune response. I don't really see why they cannot vaccinate young children against measles, then teenagers against mumps and rubella. I'm probably ignorant of some very important facts.

The rubella vaccine is not as effective as the others. I've had 2 lots and I've contracted rubella twice (not as a direct result of the vaccinations). All women are tested for rubella antibodies in the early stages of pregnancy, I'm thinking I may be one of a number of people who will never develop immunity. Again this is not a serious illness in childhood. The first time I had no symptoms except the rash. It made me extremely ill when I was in my late teens (so ill we thought I had measles), but had no lasting effects. It seems to only be dangerous if contracted during pregnancy.

Rolypie I have pm'd you

I'm hoping that Don_Kiddick won't mind me posting this link to his considered opinion on the subject, as a health professional, and the father of an autistic child.
http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=267088&postcount=5
That was posted a loooong time ago.

It is now accepted by all serious health profesionals that MMR is the correct way forward...

...and to clarify, both my kids had the MMR jab and are fine*.

(*well, at least within the bounds we are talking about ;) )

Sorry this has turned into the debate you didn't want, but please don't put your kids at needless risk.

:)

In answer to previous question about Rubella. Pregnant Mums are the most at risk and where are they most likely to come into contact with Rubella if the vaccination for the mother doesn't take? In school and nurseries where there are children getting Rubella due to the fact that parents so worried by the MMR have not had their children vaccinated. Have you thought if you don't get your child vaccinated by an approved person it is not only your child who is at risk but the whole population? A number of parents thought they were having their children vaccinated and found none of the vaccinations worked and their children were not covered.

For goodness sake you lot, get a grip.

These illnesses are not akin to the bubonic plague. They are childhood ailments which thankfully the vast majority of children recover from. They recovered in years gone by and I dare say with improved hygeine, better diet and an overall better standard of living they would recover from even quicker today.

All this scaremongering is not necessary. Most parents want to do the best for their offspring whether that be giving MMR or not as the case may be.

For goodness sake you lot, get a grip.

These illnesses are not akin to the bubonic plague. They are childhood ailments which thankfully the vast majority of children recover from. They recovered in years gone by and I dare say with improved hygeine, better diet and an overall better standard of living they would recover from even quicker today.

All this scaremongering is not necessary. Most parents want to do the best for their offspring whether that be giving MMR or not as the case may be.

Measles kills 0.1% of those infected in a developed country according to wikipedia. The lack of herd immunity only has to cause the infecion of 1000 people to result in 1 person dying.

In answer to previous question about Rubella. Pregnant Mums are the most at risk and where are they most likely to come into contact with Rubella if the vaccination for the mother doesn't take? In school and nurseries where there are children getting Rubella due to the fact that parents so worried by the MMR have not had their children vaccinated. Have you thought if you don't get your child vaccinated by an approved person it is not only your child who is at risk but the whole population? A number of parents thought they were having their children vaccinated and found none of the vaccinations worked and their children were not covered.

Until very recently no-one was vaccinated against Rubella until they were 12, and even then it was only girls. I don't remember German Measles ever being prevalent during that time.

For goodness sake you lot, get a grip.

These illnesses are not akin to the bubonic plague. They are childhood ailments which thankfully the vast majority of children recover from. They recovered in years gone by and I dare say with improved hygeine, better diet and an overall better standard of living they would recover from even quicker today.

All this scaremongering is not necessary. Most parents want to do the best for their offspring whether that be giving MMR or not as the case may be.

Well it's not just about getting the ailments and recovering. There are mortality rates for all three diseases, it’s also about controlling the diseases themselves. In larger populations the diseases could mutate in to more deadly forms, forms that are far worse and easier to catch. We ideally want to avoid that.

Even so, mortality rates are still fairly high. With mortality rates of between 0.1% and 0.2% you have a best case of 1 in 1000 risk factor. So it is a fairly risky desison.

And also the fact that MMR doesn't cause Autism, and in todays debate three vaccines with Thermisol would be worse than one.

For goodness sake you lot, get a grip.

These illnesses are not akin to the bubonic plague. They are childhood ailments which thankfully the vast majority of children recover from...

Measles, Mumps and Rubella...

...all childhood ailments ?

You sure ?

Not sure the "tooth fairy" will help wilth some of the "issues" these diseases cause.

:confused:

That was posted a loooong time ago.



:)
As a serious Health Professional - I still stand by my opinion. :thumbsup:

Firstly, the thing to be emphasised, regardless of all the ins and outs of the single vs triple debate is immunise your kids. Too many parents have done the rabbit in the headlights thing of not wanting to make a difficult decision and just done nothing.

Pregnant Mums are the most at risk and where are they most likely to come into contact with Rubella if the vaccination for the mother doesn't take? In school and nurseries where there are children getting Rubella due to the fact that parents so worried by the MMR have not had their children vaccinated.

Annoying childhood complaints they may be for the fortunate majority, but for some vulnerable people they are extremely dangerous which is why it is so crucial to maintain herd immunity. There are a few for whom the immunisation does not provide full immunity but there are also people who are cannot beimmunised and thus are left unprotected, for example very small babies, people with severe medical complaints, people with supressed immune systems etc. Just recently, for the first time in 14 years there has been a measles fatality. It was a boy who suffered lung disease and therefore had to take immunosupressive drugs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/4871728.stm

Personally I also know the danger these diseases pose to the very vulnerable. My cousin nearly died of another childhood illness that is virtually erradicated now, whooping cough. She was just a few weeks old and the next door neighbour's child who had a legitimate medical reason for not being immunised unknowingly communicated it to her. She is very lucky to have survived and not to have been brain damaged as her poor brain was so starved of oxygen during the prolonged coughing fits.

The point is that so called herd immunity protects everybody, it protects you, your child and any future children as well as protecting everybody else too. As a parent by not immusing your own child you are also risking other people's children. How would you feel if another child who was unimmunised for medical reasons, died after your child unwittingly infected them...? Or if the so mild it barely bothered your child german measles infected a pregnant mother who then had to deal with the trauma of possible birth defects to her unborn babe...? Not great I suspect.

Oh and there's always that 1 in 1000 chance that your child will be the one to develop serious and life-threatening complications no matter how healthy they were before they got ill......

So whichever way you choose to do it make sure that you do immunise and that they get all the booster jabs. And I'm sorry to those who disagree, if you can't find anywhere to give you single jabs, regardless of your misgivings, it is still sfaer (for you and for society) to give the triple than to give none.

Measles, Mumps and Rubella...

...all childhood ailments ?

You sure ?

Not sure the "tooth fairy" will help wilth some of the "issues" these diseases cause.

:confused:


Don't know your age but my generation were very lucky if they escaped any of the MMR childhood diseases. We had them and we recovered and had lifelong immunity as a result.

Don't know your age but my generation were very lucky if they escaped any of the MMR childhood diseases. We had them and we recovered and had lifelong immunity as a result.

Did you also live under a box, at the bottom of the local frozen pond...

...a certain Monty Python sketch springs to mind.

:hihi:

I think twiglet and someone else has already touched on the caution involved when deciding to have the single vaccinations. As far as I am aware the carrier solutions are the problem in some of these cases as they come from abroad.

A friend of mine had these done at Hillsborough (and pais a lot of money) a few years ago and was then recalled as they were not safe. So do make sure you really check it all out. She wasn't the kind of person to not research what she was doing either, but it still happened.

As far as autism goes there are so many other factors involved I think it is impossible to pin it down to one particular area of blame, it is also on the increase totally regardless of the MMR. Is that due to more diagnosees or is it due to our evolution? I don't know.

Don't know your age but my generation were very lucky if they escaped any of the MMR childhood diseases. We had them and we recovered and had lifelong immunity as a result.
But considering most people born before 1957 have had measles, and the death rate from measles now with modern medicine is 1 to 2 in 1000 cases , how many weren't lucky enough to recover?

Don't know your age but my generation were very lucky if they escaped any of the MMR childhood diseases. We had them and we recovered and had lifelong immunity as a result.

Not everyone recovered. People die from these diseases. My mum lost the sight in one eye because of childhood measles.

There is a private GP on Whitham Road at Broomhill or more predictably you can go up to Leeds.
http://www.nuffieldhospitals.org.uk/az_showserviceathosp.asp?sid=1232&hid=12
Found the Surgery on Whitham Rd, but they have stopped doing the single jabs as they can no longer get hold of the vaccine.

Nor do Nuffield :shocked:

But to answer rolypies original question here are two non Sheffield practices that do:
he childrens immunization centre, anchester (http://www.childrensimmunisation.co.uk/)

west midlands (http://www.drjohnoakley.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/)

Just to update:

Our son had his measles vaccine today in Leicester. (one and a half hour drive)
We were happy with the consultation and the vaccine was presented from a refridgeration unit, shown to us sealed in the manufacterers packaging, and the use by date shown to be in date.

Back in four weeks for mumps.

Just a shame that it isn't readily available for all on the NHS :rant: :rant: :rant:
http://www.privategp.com/

Hi, thanks for the info. Our son is now 10 months so we will be seriously looking into this now and getting him booked in somewhere.

Thanks again.

I got told that my son would have to have a 6 month wait in between the seperate jabs, how come you've been told 4 weeks? :confused: A few websites i went on stated 6 months by the way.

Just to update:

Our son had his measles vaccine today in Leicester. (one and a half hour drive)
We were happy with the consultation and the vaccine was presented from a refridgeration unit, shown to us sealed in the manufacterers packaging, and the use by date shown to be in date.

Back in four weeks for mumps.

Just a shame that it isn't readily available for all on the NHS :rant: :rant: :rant:
http://www.privategp.com/

Such a shame that you're stupid enough to jab your child six times instead of two, and give him three times the chance of developing complications, just because you're so gullible as to believe a piece of botched research that's been universally discredited more than five years ago, and never had any worthwhile science in it to begin with.

Such a shame that you're stupid enough to jab your child six times instead of two, and give him three times the chance of developing complications, just because you're so gullible as to believe a piece of botched research that's been universally discredited more than five years ago, and never had any worthwhile science in it to begin with.
Errr, what's up, doc? (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v391/draggletail/up%20yours/upyours2.jpg)

I got told that my son would have to have a 6 month wait in between the seperate jabs, how come you've been told 4 weeks? :confused: A few websites i went on stated 6 months by the way.
I'm pretty sure that the practice we considered going to at Manchester said one month apart as well, tinkabel.

Such a shame that you're stupid enough to jab your child six times instead of two, and give him three times the chance of developing complications, just because you're so gullible as to believe a piece of botched research that's been universally discredited more than five years ago, and never had any worthwhile science in it to begin with.

Perhaps you've never experienced a child who changed dramatically since having the MMR, i know 3 children that are now autistic or borderline autistic. Such a shame that some folk would rather ignore the evidence and save a few quid by getting the all in one and risking things, i for one wouldn't risk my son getting autism for the sake of a few hundred quid.

Such a shame that some people still believe the word of the 'experts' when there's such a strong evidence!

Yeah, I know someone whose child developed autism not long after their MMR jab.
So, when her second son was due for the vaccination, she didn't get him vaccinated.

And he also developed autism at about the same age anyway.


Such strong evidence? There is NO evidence! Just unfortunate happenstance!


A lot of people worry about the link because the detection/onset of autism is a lot easier to identify these days, and happens to become noticeable/occur round about the same age as kids are due for their MMR jabs. But, the statistics are CLEAR - yes, they do seem to happen at about the same time, but the frequency of autism in the vaccinated population is NO DIFFERENT to that in the unvaccinated population.


There. Is. No. Link.


[Anyone else watch Jane Eyre last night? And get a shudder at the thought that people TODAY are wilfully tempting the return of killer childhood diseases, by failing to effectively vaccinate their children.]

Yeah, I know someone whose child developed autism not long after their MMR jab.
So, when her second son was due for the vaccination, she didn't get him vaccinated.

And he also developed autism at about the same age anyway.


Such strong evidence? There is NO evidence! Just unfortunate happenstance!


A lot of people worry about the link because the detection/onset of autism is a lot easier to identify these days, and happens to become noticeable/occur round about the same age as kids are due for their MMR jabs. But, the statistics are CLEAR - yes, they do seem to happen at about the same time, but the frequency of autism in the vaccinated population is NO DIFFERENT to that in the unvaccinated population.


There. Is. No. Link.


[Anyone else watch Jane Eyre last night? And get a shudder at the thought that people TODAY are wilfully tempting the return of killer childhood diseases, by failing to effectively vaccinate their children.]

Theres already mean news stories about outbreaks of mumps in some areas due to the herd immunity dropping so low due to people refusing to vaccinate their kids. Thats scary.

My friends nephew, talked, walked, loved playing with his siblings and interacting with others, he then had his MMR, a week later, he stopped doing all these things, coincedence, i think not, i saw this with my own eyes and its very sad, thats the evidence i believe strongly in.

This child is now 7, he still doesn't talk, doesn't play with his siblings or interact with others.

Theres already mean news stories about outbreaks of mumps in some areas due to the herd immunity dropping so low due to people refusing to vaccinate their kids. Thats scary.

There would be one simple solution to this problem and that would be the NHS allowing parents the choice of the all in one or singles, until the government does this, the problem will not go away.

My son is 19 months old, was due his MMR at 13 months and is still not immunised as i just do not have the money to pay for the singles.

There would be one simple solution to this problem and that would be the NHS allowing parents the choice of the all in one or singles, until the government does this, the problem will not go away.



But theres no need as there is no more risk (of autism) with combined jabs than singles. As has been pointed out by people repeatedly on this forum.

There would be one simple solution to this problem and that would be the NHS allowing parents the choice of the all in one or singles, until the government does this, the problem will not go away.

My son is 19 months old, was due his MMR at 13 months and is still not immunised as i just do not have the money to pay for the singles.


Err..I don't wish to be rude, but if you feel this strongly about it as regards safety, sell something to pay for the jabs. Your TV, your PC, whatever. Leaving your child without the jabs at all is just daft. You are taking a bigger risk doing nothing than having the MMR.

Err..I don't wish to be rude, but if you feel this strongly about it as regards safety, sell something to pay for the jabs. Your TV, your PC, whatever. Leaving your child without the jabs at all is just daft. You are taking a bigger risk doing nothing than having the MMR.

My tv's worth about £10 if i'm lucky, my PC's worth about £50, any other stupid suggestions?!! Do you not think if i had the money i would pay for the jabs straight away?!!!

But theres no need as there is no more risk (of autism) with combined jabs than singles. As has been pointed out by people repeatedly on this forum.

I HAVE SEEN IT WITH MY OWN EYES, I WILL NOT TAKE THE RISK!

I HAVE SEEN IT WITH MY OWN EYES
No, you've just confused correlation with causation, I'm afraid.

It's sad, but I'm not surprised that people still think that MMR causes autism, what with all the media hysteria there was over it a few years ago.

My tv's worth about £10 if i'm lucky, my PC's worth about £50, any other stupid suggestions?!! Do you not think if i had the money i would pay for the jabs straight away?!!!

If you dont have any jabs you take a larger risk with the health of a child than if you have the MMR jab as there is good evidence (because as I understand its well known that when herd immunity drops below some level outbreaks of disease happen) loss of herd immunity leads to cases of mumps etc. Converesly there is no evidence MMR causes problems so the risk of *something* bad happening is much smaller. So if the choice is only between no jabs or having MMR the safest bet is surely MMR.

well i must be stupid then because i will not risk my sons health, not when i know 3 kids who changed after having it.

well i must be stupid then because i will not risk my sons health, not when i know 3 kids who changed after having it.
I'm not saying you're stupid, I'm just saying that you've confused correlation with causation.

I think that most medical people would say you're risking your son's health more by not having him vaccinated than you would by having him vaccinated.

There's also the point about 'herd immunity' that other people have mentioned. Your son may well not contract any of these diseases, despite not being vaccinated, but if enough people decide not to have their children vaccinated, then somebody else's son will contract one of them.

My son had single vaccines 3 months apart, at a clinic in the West Midlands (the one that Draggletail linked to above).

I would have paid any amount of money purely for my peace of mind (and I am by no means rich). I researched and researched my decision and whether there is a link to autism proven or not, I am not prepared to take that sort of risk with my sons health.

What has always niggled me the most is the lack of choice given by the Government and the fact that you have to virtually go underground to actually get single vaccines. They clinics where they are offered are usually very well hidden(not hidden as in down a back street, more through recommendations on internet forums, etc).

I don't see why the Government can't offer single vaccines, given by the GP, even if they had to charge a small amount for the actual vaccines, surely this would be better than their only alternative to the MMR, i.e. no vaccine. In my opinion parents are being denied the choice to make an informed decision and that is my main problem with this whole MMR business.

The problem with this whole MMR vs single jabs debate is that while the media widely reported the (incorrect) reports that MMR causes autism, they did not tell us that the report was wrong, and that there is no link between the two.

Good for everyone who gives their children the MMR jab. Those of you who are giving the single vaccines, well, it's definitely better than nothing at all.

I blame the media.

Bit 1 of 2 because of firewall size limits....

It's not the media's fault; people are free to make up their own mind about issues.

Obviously before the report came out, no-one had any concerns or suspicions that there might be a link between the combined MMJ jab and any sort of condition, e.g. autism.

Then came the report, which has since been shown to have been based on evidence that could be, and probably is, circumstantial. IIRC even the author has admitted it wasn't as well thought out/correctly researched/reviewed/published - but as with 99% of stupides like this, no-one can categorically rebuff the suggestions within it (it is VERY hard to prove something has zero link and/or impact to something else when you're dealing with living beings subject to thousands of other factors).

Since then people have taken one of two views;
1 - the MMR jab is or - I suspect the more popular choice - might be harmful, therefore why take the risk with the most precious thing in my life. (Subsequently there are two more choices - get seperate jabs (wise), don't have any jabs (obviously very stupid))
2 - there is no risk, my kid can have the MMR jab.

My tv's worth about £10 if i'm lucky, my PC's worth about £50, any other stupid suggestions?!! Do you not think if i had the money i would pay for the jabs straight away?!!!

Other stupid suggestions? Yeah...do nothing. Look, I'm really not trying to be a pain in the neck here, but not having the jabs is just daft. How much are they separately? I appreciate that some people don't believe the MMR is safe ( I happen to believe it is ), but not having them is the worst decision of the three. And on the question of money - what is higher on your list of priorities than your child's health?

....part 2...
As is it currently unproven and worse still near enough impossible to categorically state that there is/isn't a risk, I think it's perfectly understandable that some people decide that they don't want to take a chance - however small - with their offspring. It doesn't make them wrong, if anything it shows that they have taken interest in the subject and care about their kids a lot more than those who opt for their children to go without any immunisation! Some people don't see a risk, some do - the important thing is that everyone acts and gets immunisation in one form or another.

Although I'd happily put any kids I have through the MMJ jab (based on current information & reasearch) I'd be supportive of a partner if they decided they would prefer seperate jabs for our kids. After all, we're talking about a one-off payment of a hundred quid or so, and to me that's pretty cheap peace of mind especially when you're talking about your own flesh and blood.

:)

How much are they separately?

I paid £280 for all three (although this was 2 years ago) looking at the clinic's website where I had them done it is now £105 for measles, £145 for mumps, and £85 for rubella - £335 in total. Worth every penny IMO.

Bit 1 of 2 because of firewall size limits....

It's not the media's fault; people are free to make up their own mind about issues.

Obviously before the report came out, no-one had any concerns or suspicions that there might be a link between the combined MMJ jab and any sort of condition, e.g. autism.

Then came the report, which has since been shown to have been based on evidence that could be, and probably is, circumstantial. IIRC even the author has admitted it wasn't as well thought out/correctly researched/reviewed/published - but as with 99% of stupides like this, no-one can defute the suggestions within it (it is VERY hard to prove something has zero link and/or impact to something else when you're dealing with living beings subject to thousands of other factors).

Since then people have taken one of two views;
1 - the MMR jab is or - I suspect the more popular choice - might be harmful, therefore why take the risk with the most precious thing in my life. (Subsequently there are two more choices - get seperate jabs (wise), don't have any jabs (obviously very stupid))
2 - there is no risk, my kid can have the MMR jab.

The report was widely covered by the media, before it had been peer reviewed. As soon as it was, huge problems were found with it. The fact that scientists don't promote their work and so many parents are still left thinking there is some truth to this urban myth shows that the media did a great job telling people of the report, and a bad job telling people it was flawed.

After the initial report, the internet conspiracy sites took over. There was already a deep distrust of “big pharama” and that distrust fed the firestorm.

They should never have run the first report, but they got lots of viewers because they did. Something that affects all parents and the health of their children is going to attract lots of attention, the media have a responsibility to check the report and wait until it goes through peer review before reporting on it.

P.S I agree parents should have the choice to give their children what ever version of the MMR they want on the NHS.

Other stupid suggestions? Yeah...do nothing. Look, I'm really not trying to be a pain in the neck here, but not having the jabs is just daft. How much are they separately? I appreciate that some people don't believe the MMR is safe ( I happen to believe it is ), but not having them is the worst decision of the three. And on the question of money - what is higher on your list of priorities than your child's health?

Average £300, depends where you travel to. So what your saying is because i can't afford the single jabs yet, i should just have the MMR and prayer it goes ok?!!! There is nothing on my list of priorities higher than my childs health, hence why i want the single jabs and not the MMR, thought i'd made it perfectly clear that i didn't want to risk my childs health by giving him the MMR :confused: I am currently a single mother on benefits, come January i'll be back at work, hopefully then i will be able to afford to get them done.

I completely agree with you 'downtroad', but (fortunately/unfortunately is a different discussion entirely) it didn't happen like that, so we are - like it or not - in the situation we have now and the facts I've stated still stand.

IMHO as a result there is no 'right'/'wrong' action to take, apart from choosing to ignore immunisation entirely.

If the choice is between a totally discredited, tiny-even-if-it-were-true risk of autism, and the very real risk of serious childhood illness, I know what I'd choose.

Good luck saving for your choice of vaccination, even if some of us think it's a waste of your money - if it gives you peace of mind, and you can't accept the scientifically sound alternative, that's your choice -- and probably worth giving up all your luxuries for, for as long as it takes to raise the money.

Perhaps you've never experienced a child who changed dramatically since having the MMR, i know 3 children that are now autistic or borderline autistic. Such a shame that some folk would rather ignore the evidence and save a few quid by getting the all in one and risking things, i for one wouldn't risk my son getting autism for the sake of a few hundred quid.

Such a shame that some people still believe the word of the 'experts' when there's such a strong evidence!

The 'evidence' has been discredited. There is also much more wide-ranging evidence that even in societies that use single vaccines (e.g. Japan) the rate of autism is rising at a similar rate as in countries that use MMR. Just because Autism is rising does not mean that MMR is the cause.

It's very easy to judge others, especially on the arguenet (sorry internet) but I think it's pretty clear that 'tinkabel' is a consciences mother who is trying to secure what she sees as the best for her kids, and we shouldn't knock or judge her for that.

I can imagine it must be very difficult to be in the situation you're in tinkabel and you have my sympathy. I hope you can secure the funds for the seperate jabs soon. :)

The 'evidence' has been discredited. There is also much more wide-ranging evidence that even in societies that use single vaccines (e.g. Japan) the rate of autism is rising at a similar rate as in countries that use MMR. Just because Autism is rising does not mean that MMR is the cause.
Read my posts banesmabes. Yes the evidence has been discredited, but the potential for a link is very much harder to discard. It is for this reason athat some parents choose to play it safe. Surely, especially if you're a parent, you'd understand wanting to remove or reduce what you see as a risk to your childs safety and wellbeing? We don't all hold the same opinions as each other - and like I say there is only 1 'wrong' answer in this situation...

It's very easy to judge others, especially on the arguenet (sorry internet) but I think it's pretty clear that 'tinkabel' is a consciences mother who is trying to secure what she sees as the best for her kids, and we shouldn't knock or judge her for that.

I can imagine it must be very difficult to be in the situation you're in tinkabel and you have my sympathy. I hope you can secure the funds for the seperate jabs soon. :)

Thank you for your support, its nice to see someone understands where i am coming from. Sheffield Forum seems to be attracting a lot of narrow-minded people just lately, i have researched the MMR since my son was 10 weeks old and my health visitor started talking about it in my baby group, this means i have been researching it for over a year now and i am still not 100% convinced that there are no links. The way people get shot down on this forum disgusts me.

Thanks again SupraSteve.

Average £300, depends where you travel to. So what your saying is because i can't afford the single jabs yet, i should just have the MMR and prayer it goes ok?!!! There is nothing on my list of priorities higher than my childs health, hence why i want the single jabs and not the MMR, thought i'd made it perfectly clear that i didn't want to risk my childs health by giving him the MMR :confused: I am currently a single mother on benefits, come January i'll be back at work, hopefully then i will be able to afford to get them done.

But there is no evidence that MMR is any more of a risk that single jabs. And leaving your child un-immunised is an even bigger risk.

Read my posts banesmabes. Yes the evidence has been discredited, but the potential for a link is very much harder to discard. It is for this reason athat some parents choose to play it safe. Surely, especially if you're a parent, you'd understand wanting to remove or reduce what you see as a risk to your childs safety and wellbeing? We don't all hold the same opinions as each other - and like I say there is only 1 'wrong' answer in this situation...

I haven't seen any evidence of a link between any of these jabs and autism, so I would be perfectly happy to go with MMR.

But there is no evidence that MMR is any more of a risk that single jabs. And leaving your child un-immunised is an even bigger risk.

As i keep bloody saying, i know of 3 kids that changed after having the MMR, 3 isn't a coincedence, its frigging scary! So therefore i see it as a risk, keep ramming the 'no evidence' down my throat if you wish, call me an irresponsible mother if you like, it doesn't bother me, i am doing this for my sons sake at the end of the day. There are a hell of a lot of un-immunised kids about now, not just my son. Please step down off your high and mighty step and realise not everyones going to agree with everyone else.

I don't believe this 'no evidence' either tinkabel.

There are plenty of anti-immunisation websites out there full of families who believe their childs autism was caused by the MMR jab. Until someone with substantial medical credentials can convince me 1000% that it is safe and poses no risk whatsoever to my son, then I will stand by my decision to give single vaccines all the way.

. There are a hell of a lot of un-immunised kids about now, not just my son.

Leaving aside whatever your issues are with the MMR jab, this is the problem everyone is getting on "high horse" about. People are getting a bit miffed with you because you aren't just risking your own childs life because of your inactivity, you are risking others lives. Pay for the three jabs or get the MMR done...please.

Fair enough, you've been spooked by three children that appear to have had a reaction to MMR - I might feel the same in your situation, and decide to go for the individual jabs. So get the three jabs done. Borrow the money, sell something, but get the jabs done. And As I said before - what's higher on your priority list? Got a mobile phone? get rid. Smoke? Stop. Sky TV? cancel.

Read my posts banesmabes. Yes the evidence has been discredited, but the potential for a link is very much harder to discard. It is for this reason athat some parents choose to play it safe. Surely, especially if you're a parent, you'd understand wanting to remove or reduce what you see as a risk to your childs safety and wellbeing? We don't all hold the same opinions as each other - and like I say there is only 1 'wrong' answer in this situation...

you can say that about any medical procedure though. Nothing is risk free ever. Theres always the chance of some pathological set of circumstances lining up to cause problems so why single out MMR for avoidance on such a basis?

I haven't seen any evidence of a link between any of these jabs and autism, so I would be perfectly happy to go with MMR.
That's completely fine banesmabes - you're convinced that there isn't a risk, others aren't. That is my point.

Let's for arguements sake, say that I think letting a 5 year old walk home from school unacompanied (nb: totally hypothetical scenario) isn't risking their health, safety or wellbeing. You might disagree. To make an accurate comparison (purely to get my point across - this is obviously a stupid idea) let's assume that there isn't evidence to suggest it is dangerous. Likewise, there isn't any to state that it isn't dangerous. Does it make me right and you wrong? Vice versa - you're right and I'm wrong?

Just because you hold a viewpoint, based on - this bit is key - your interpretation of the facts, doesn't mean it's right and eveyrone else is wrong. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and to make what they see as the best choice for their kids.

I suspect that you're more worried that tinkabel gets jabs of some description for her son, so that he is protected (that's the key, right?), not that she has the MMR jab over the seperate injections. Would I be correct in that assumption or do you really belittle anyone who goes for seperate injections purely because they made that choice?

There are a hell of a lot of un-immunised kids about now, not just my son.

Which is exactly the problem. Not just your child is at risk, but you are contributing to a growing problem that is leaving many children in danger when we will have an inevitable outbreak of a potentially fatal disease.

We are already having major outbreaks of Mumps in the unimmunised portion of the population (those slightly older than the first group of children to have had the MMR), we have had several outbreaks of measles (one child died in April).

There is a far higher chance of your child contracting measles than there is of them getting autism from MMR vaccine.

you can say that about any medical procedure though. Nothing is risk free ever. Theres always the chance of some pathological set of circumstances lining up to cause problems so why single out MMR for avoidance on such a basis?
You can indeed state what I did about a wide range of things, and would be right to weigh up the pros and cons of any medical procedure or treatment before partaking in it.

I think the reason the MMR jab gets more (at least vocal) attention than most other concerns parents may have, is pretty clear;
- it had massive public attention, when major concerns were raised (and since largely, but not entirely, dismissed) about it's safety
- immunisation is something that all children are advised to have, as a result it affects everyone.

P.S. Discussion about matters such as this is good! ;)

You can indeed state what I did about a wide range of things, and would be right to weigh up the pros and cons of any medical procedure or treatment before partaking in it.

I think the reason the MMR jab gets more (at least vocal) attention than most other concerns parents may have, is pretty clear;
- it had massive public attention, when major concerns were raised (and since largely, but not entirely, dismissed) about it's safety
- immunisation is something that all children are advised to have, as a result it affects everyone.

P.S. Discussion about matters such as this is good! ;)

but such concerns could apply to all vaccines. So isnt the logical conclusion people who wont give MMR to children should not allow *any* vaccines because theres always the chance it will go wrong even if it is extremely unlikely. MMR is just as safe as any other vaccine. I wonder if it is not more safe because of all the extra scrutiny it has had.

That's completely fine banesmabes - you're convinced that there isn't a risk, others aren't. That is my point.

Let's for arguements sake, say that I think letting a 5 year old walk home from school unacompanied (nb: totally hypothetical scenario) isn't risking their health, safety or wellbeing. You might disagree. To make an accurate comparison (purely to get my point across - this is obviously a stupid idea) let's assume that there isn't evidence to suggest it is dangerous. Likewise, there isn't any to state that it isn't dangerous. Does it make me right and you wrong? Vice versa - you're right and I'm wrong?



But not allowing your kid to walk home does not pose a health risk. Not having vaccinations done does jeapordise a childs health and other peoples health.

But not allowing your kid to walk home does not pose a health risk. Not having vaccinations done does jeapordise a childs health and other peoples health.
They might get run over, I'd say that is damaging to health. You miss the point I feel :| it was an arbitary example chosen to make a point about what defines right/wrong - i.e. that it is NOT an individual's opinion.

Here is a thought;

People are conserned about parents not getting their children immunised.

Parents are conserned (rightly or wrongly) about Autism. Not much is going to change their mind on that.

So make the seperate vaccines widely available on the NHS.

If you don't at least some of the blame falls on the NHS's lap for parents not immunising their children. Some parents cannot afford the seperate vaccines, so they will be tempted not to vaccinate.

but such concerns could apply to all vaccines. So isnt the logical conclusion people who wont give MMR to children should not allow *any* vaccines because theres always the chance it will go wrong even if it is extremely unlikely.
Perhaps, which is exactly what stated; a caring parent would eductae themselves with as many facts as they feel necessary before forming their own opinion and acting on that as they feel necessary and in the best interest of their child/ren.

MMR is just as safe as any other vaccine. I wonder if it is not more safe because of all the extra scrutiny it has had.
Actually, you cannot categorically state that. We have no idea how safe/risky/other particular vaccines (combined or otherwise) are. I feel you meant that they are all regarded as equally safe - which I'd agree with.

I've stated what I feel are the reasons this topic, and particularly the MMJ jab, face increased interest from the public. At the end of the day it's a contentious topic and one with a key point – health of loved ones - at its core; it’s going to attract attention and discussion. :)

Here is a thought;

People are conserned about parents not getting their children immunised.

Parents are conserned (rightly or wrongly) about Autism. Not much is going to change their mind on that.

So make the seperate vaccines widely available on the NHS.

If you don't at least some of the blame falls on the NHS's lap for parents not immunising their children. Some parents cannot afford the seperate vaccines, so they will be tempted not to vaccinate.

I think the NHS may well end up offering the three separately on the NHS to protect the population as a whole. Having large numbers of kids unimmunised is a major risk.

The money is a false argument - what is more important than your own childs health? Clearly quite a few things for some people...we are hardly talking a large amount of cash.

The money is a false argument - what is more important than your own childs health? Clearly quite a few things for some people...we are hardly talking a large amount of cash.
No-one on here (that I've noticed in the last few pages) has said that they don't think their kid should be immmunised, in fact, everyone has said the opposite - they recognise the need and think it's a top priority.

I agree with your view on the NHS' stance on the single jabs, it would be good if they could offer it, even if it has to be paid for at cost value - at least then it would be more widely available. :|

They might get run over, I'd say that is damaging to health. You miss the point I feel :| it was an arbitary example chosen to make a point about what defines right/wrong - i.e. that it is NOT an individual's opinion.

I said *not* allowing them to walk home poses no health risk. Not getting vaccinated does.

The money is a false argument - what is more important than your own childs health? Clearly quite a few things for some people...we are hardly talking a large amount of cash.

It's not a false argument, some people really do have problems finding that much money, even though they are taking their childrens health seriously.

I said *not* allowing them to walk home poses no health risk. Not getting vaccinated does.
It makes no difference - it was an *arbitary example* not designed to draw close parallels between the two scenarios - you're missing the point entirely I'm afraid and I cannot spell it out any more clearly, sorry.

It's not a false argument, some people really do have problems finding that much money, even though they are taking their childrens health seriously.
I think Tomataheeed's point was 'IF anyone were to use "I can't afford it" as a reason to NOT get thier child immunised....'

Correct me if I'm wrong Tomataheeed :D

Maybe Juliet Stephenson and Cherie Blair should get together and start a charity to pay for the single vaccinations for people who want them but can't afford them.

It makes no difference - it was an *arbitary example* not designed to draw close parallels between the two scenarios -

Thats exactly why it is not particularly relevant. We are dealing with people not doing things that pose a risk to the health of their children and other children. In this case we cant have a "everyones opinion is just as valid as all others" scenario. Clearly some people are more expert than others (like medical experts).

I think Tomataheeed's point was 'IF anyone were to use "I can't afford it" as a reason to NOT get thier child immunised....'

Correct me if I'm wrong Tomataheeed :D

Both right. I don't understand the argument of ..." I can't afford it" when it comes to this issue. It doesn't matter how poor - sell something, give up smoking, save up...whatever. Clearly people are spending money on other things before a vaccine. I cannot understand why. Surely you would go hungry to pay for a vaccine for your own child.

Thats exactly why it is not particularly relevant. We are dealing with people not doing things that pose a risk to the health of their children and other children. In this case we cant have a "everyones opinion is just as valid as all others" scenario. Clearly some people are more expert than others (like medical experts).
*I know!!!*
:help:
I. Can't. Make. My. Point. Any. Clearer.

Say after me;
arbitary example,
not designed to draw close parallels,
stated purely to show different thinking does *not* equal right or wrong...

If you notice, I discussed the merits and of the single/multiple jabs in separate sentences (and posts!) to those constructing the example I cited (and that you've since latched onto). The example was simply to demonstrate that people have different opions about the same topic, and will come to different conclusions about what they feel is, or isn't, safe for their child. Nothing more, nothing less. It wasn't anything to do with immunisation. Does that make sense now?

:help:

I had may twins MMR'd
It was never a debate in our house
Vaccinations Don't Kill :)

*I know!!!*
:help:
I. Can't. Make. My. Point. Any. Clearer.

Say after me;
arbitary example,
not designed to draw close parallels,
stated purely to show different thinking does *not* equal right or wrong...

If you notice, I discussed the merits and of the single/multiple jabs in separate sentences (and posts!) to those constructing the example I cited (and that you've since latched onto). The example was simply to demonstrate that people have different opions about the same topic, and will come to different conclusions about what they feel is, or isn't, safe for their child. Nothing more, nothing less. It wasn't anything to do with immunisation. Does that make sense now?

:help:

If you say it is nothing to do with the discussion on immunisation why did you add it to the thread? I think it is obvious people come to different opinions. We all know that - else why would there be any discussion on this thread in the first place? So I dont really follow what you are getting at except to state the obvious that not all peoples opinions are the same.

But they are not all equal as you imply with "different thinking does not equal right or wrong". I am afraid in some cases an opinion is simply wrong.

If you say it is nothing to do with the discussion on immunisation why did you add it to the thread? I think it is obvious people come to different opinions. We all know that - else why would there be any discussion on this thread in the first place? So I dont really follow what you are getting at except to state the obvious that not all peoples opinions are the same.
It may quite simply have escaped your notice, but was a logical argument for the particular time in this thread - it was actually aimed specifically at Banesmabes - read back and you'll see why I made the comment, what it referred to, and all that all the other aspects of a logical and reasoned discussion are present.
If however, nothing changes, I will have to admit defeat, you don't 'get it', and I can't help you get it. lol

But they are not all equal as you imply with "different thinking does not equal right or wrong". I am afraid in some cases an opinion is simply wrong.
Spelling it out just once more - call me a gluten for punishment - I've stated that there really is only one wrong opinion on this matter, that being that immunisation shouldn't occur or doesn't need to occur. It is neither 'right' nor 'wrong' to have the MMR jab over the 3 sperate jabs or vice versa, based on what we currently know.

This is taking the discussion nowhere. :(

It may quite simply have escaped your notice, but was a logical argument for the particular time in this thread - it was actually aimed specifically at Banesmabes - read back and you'll see why I made the comment, what it referred to, and all that all the other aspects of a logical and reasoned discussion are present.
If however, nothing changes, I will have to admit defeat, you don't 'get it', and I can't help you get it. lol


Spelling it out just once more - call me a gluten for punishment - I've stated that there really is only one wrong opinion on this matter, that being that immunisation shouldn't occur or doesn't need to occur. It is neither 'right' nor 'wrong' to have the MMR jab over the 3 sperate jabs or vice versa, based on what we currently know.



Thats not true. Having the 3 jabs separately introduces a time lag between immunisation potentially increasing the risk of infection. MMR removes such risk which is one of the reasons for moving to MMR I believe. The two choices are not therefore equal in risk.

It may quite simply have escaped your notice, but was a logical argument for the particular time in this thread - it was actually aimed specifically at Banesmabes - read back and you'll see why I made the comment, what it referred to, and all that all the other aspects of a logical and reasoned discussion are present.
If however, nothing changes, I will have to admit defeat, you don't 'get it', and I can't help you get it. lol


Spelling it out just once more - call me a gluten for punishment - I've stated that there really is only one wrong opinion on this matter, that being that immunisation shouldn't occur or doesn't need to occur. It is neither 'right' nor 'wrong' to have the MMR jab over the 3 sperate jabs or vice versa, based on what we currently know.

This is taking the discussion nowhere. :(

Your viewpoints are not consistent:

"Just because you hold a viewpoint, based on - this bit is key - your interpretation of the facts, doesn't mean it's right and eveyrone else is wrong"

"I've stated that there really is only one wrong opinion on this matter"

Either you think all opinions are valid or you dont. Banes was talking specifically about MMR so why you keep suggesting your comments have nothing to do with immunisation I dont know. Admittedly in some areas all opinions might be equally valid, but not in the MMR debate due to the enourmous number of studies done by different people on this topic.

Thats not true. Having the 3 jabs separately introduces a time lag between immunisation potentially increasing the risk of infection. MMR removes such risk which is one of the reasons for moving to MMR I believe. The two choices are not therefore equal in risk.
No-one saiud they were equal in risk. Both choices, however, mean that the child is immunised - which is the key here. If you want to quibble over a difference of a few weeks of protection (which go out of the window once you consider the delays some parents may face when trying to get the MMJ jab, compared to simply walking into a private clinic and paying there & then for the seperate jabs as & when it suits the parents) then you're more than welcome to keep that little pedantic arguement. However, you'd be missing the FAR bigger picture - to immunise or not.

Either you think all opinions are valid or you dont. Banes was talking specifically about MMR so why you keep suggesting your comments have nothing to do with immunisation I dont know.
I give up; you don't get it, and I have better things to do than repeatedly spell it out to you. :)

As i keep bloody saying, i know of 3 kids that changed after having the MMR, 3 isn't a coincedence, its frigging scary! So therefore i see it as a risk, keep ramming the 'no evidence' down my throat if you wish, call me an irresponsible mother if you like, it doesn't bother me, i am doing this for my sons sake at the end of the day. There are a hell of a lot of un-immunised kids about now, not just my son. Please step down off your high and mighty step and realise not everyones going to agree with everyone else.

But that's just anecdotal evidence. What about the anecdotal evidence of most other people who know many children who have had MMR and who don't know any that have developed autism? If you dismiss that then you can't really say your anecdotal evidence is any better. The fact that there are a lot of un-immunised kids around is very scary and the thought that some parents make themselves feel better by using this as justification for not immunising their own kids shows a misunderstanding of the purpose of immunisation. I also have to question what is taking priority by insisting on single jabs, when there is no greater risk as with the MMR jab - the parent's piece of mind, or the child's health?

I think the reason the MMR jab gets more (at least vocal) attention than most other concerns parents may have, is pretty clear;
- it had massive public attention, when major concerns were raised (and since largely, but not entirely, dismissed) about it's safety
- immunisation is something that all children are advised to have, as a result it affects everyone.

P.S. Discussion about matters such as this is good! ;)

Exactly, you've just made my point for me. It had massive public attention when the study came out. When it was dismissed (or almost, I agree that there are some doubts but statististically speaking, I'm pretty sure the study has been discredited), there was nowhere near the same amount of public attention. I think that the public need to be properly informed, and that the media has to move away from using these sorts of stories for their shock value. I'm not that naive to believe that the media will move away from this kind of "shock story", I just want them to present both sides of the story, not just the side that will sell their papers/attract viewers.

If you believe that the MMR jab is dangerous, get the single ones, definitely. It's so much better to do that than to not get your child immunised at all, and peace of mind doesn't have a top price.

That's completely fine banesmabes - you're convinced that there isn't a risk, others aren't. That is my point.

Let's for arguements sake, say that I think letting a 5 year old walk home from school unacompanied (nb: totally hypothetical scenario) isn't risking their health, safety or wellbeing. You might disagree. To make an accurate comparison (purely to get my point across - this is obviously a stupid idea) let's assume that there isn't evidence to suggest it is dangerous. Likewise, there isn't any to state that it isn't dangerous. Does it make me right and you wrong? Vice versa - you're right and I'm wrong?

Just because you hold a viewpoint, based on - this bit is key - your interpretation of the facts, doesn't mean it's right and eveyrone else is wrong. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and to make what they see as the best choice for their kids.

I suspect that you're more worried that tinkabel gets jabs of some description for her son, so that he is protected (that's the key, right?), not that she has the MMR jab over the seperate injections. Would I be correct in that assumption or do you really belittle anyone who goes for seperate injections purely because they made that choice?

Ok, so there's no evidence saying there is a link, and there's no evidence saying there definately isn't (which will never happen btw). However this is the case for both MMR and the single vaccines. There is no difference between the two. Societies that use single vaccines have seen increased incidences of autism, in the same way as societies that use MMR. So single vaccines in no way affect the level of autism in a society differently to any proposed link to MMR. So what I don't understand is why people are insisting on single vaccines, when they are no different to MMR.

Ok, so there's no evidence saying there is a link, and there's no evidence saying there definately isn't (which will never happen btw).
Yes, I said the same ealier - it's near enough impossible to prove a negative.
However this is the case for both MMR and the single vaccines. There is no difference between the two.
There is at least a subtle difference - no-one ever very publically announced that single jabs may occasionally be linked to autism in the way that occured for the MMR jab.
Societies that use single vaccines have seen increased incidences of autism, in the same way as societies that use MMR.
Do you have any sources you can quote? That would be interesting to see; information is power and I'm all for people making informed decisions! If you have this information, share it!! :)

So single vaccines in no way affect the level of autism in a society...
So what I don't understand is why people are insisting on single vaccines, when they are no different to MMR.
This is where you get stuck, I believe. You have looked at the information available to you and decided that there is no risk/no increased risk.
OTHER people will look at the information available* anddecide there IS an increased risk. In summary; different people are liable to form different opinions. It's a fact of life, get used to it ;)

(* = This may be the same source(s) of information as yours, but most likely it is different, it may be more independant, it may have more spin, it may be more detailed, it may be less detailed, it may be what mavis down the road thinks... plus a hundred other variables which really don't matter - at the end of the day, people are different and will think different things are best for their offspring. :nod:)

Yes, I said the same ealier - it's near enough impossible to prove a negative.

There is at least a subtle difference - no-one ever very publically announced that single jabs may occasionally be linked to autism in the way that occured for the MMR jab.

So that's all it takes - for someone with a vested interest to announce something has a link to some unwanted 'side-effect' with no real evidence, and everyone will believe them?

Do you have any sources you can quote? That would be interesting to see; information is power and I'm all for people making informed decisions! If you have this information, share it!! :)

I posted a link much earlier in this thread, several months ago to a study in Japan.

This is where you get stuck, I believe. You have looked at the information available to you and decided that there is no risk/no increased risk.
OTHER people will look at the information available* anddecide there IS an increased risk. In summary; different people are liable to form different opinions. It's a fact of life, get used to it ;)

(* = This may be the same source(s) of information as yours, but most likely it is different, it may be more independant, it may have more spin, it may be more detailed, it may be less detailed, it may be what mavis down the road thinks... plus a hundred other variables which really don't matter - at the end of the day, people are different and will think different things are best for their offspring. :nod:)

Ok, some people are just not logical when it comes to forming an opinion. But when people are putting their kids, and other people's kids, at risk from their ill-informed opinions then it is well worth trying to explain some logic to them. Unfortunately many people don't want to see logic. Diversity of opinion is nothing to be proud of if it is putting lives at risk, and is not something that we should just 'get used to'..

The Beeb have a nice, lay-person-friendly timeline of recent MMR research (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1808956.stm)

Ok, some people are just not logical when it comes to forming an opinion....Diversity of opinion is nothing to be proud of if it is putting lives at risk, and is not something that we should just 'get used to'..
Why is a person putting ther child's health/"life"(!!) at an increased risk if they go for the single jabs as apposed to the MMJ combined?

Notice that this involves 2 parts of your opinion;
- you've decided that the reports that you have read (which may not be exhaustive of course) can be considered to form a logical conclusion
- you've decided that this logical conclusion is that MMR is safer than single jabs (that's the first time I've heard that stated anywhere) - but you are contradicting yourself because earlier you stated that single vaccines "are no different to MMR".

NB: It is wrong to assume that there is a single logical answer to the choices a parent faces (and that logical conclusion is to get MMR over single jabs). You cannot draw that conclusion unless EVERY detail of the comparison between MMR & single jabs is the same and EVERY statistic matches (e.g. X.X% of children were hit with autism regardless of if they had the single/multiple jab(s)). Neither if these facts are true so it is up to an individual to make their own, reasoned judgment, do you understand?

Why is a person putting ther child's health/"life"(!!) at an increased risk if they go for the single jabs as apposed to the MMJ combined?

Notice that this involves 2 parts of your opinion;
- you've decided that the reports that you have read (which may not be exhaustive of course) can be considered to form a logical conclusion
- you've decided that this logical conclusion is that MMR is safer than single jabs (that's the first time I've heard that stated anywhere) - but you are contradicting yourself because earlier you stated that single vaccines "are no different to MMR".

NB: It is wrong to assume that there is a single logical answer to the choices a parent faces (and that logical conclusion is to get MMR over single jabs). You cannot draw that conclusion unless EVERY detail of the comparison between MMR & single jabs is the same and EVERY statistic matches (e.g. X.X% of children were hit with autism regardless of if they had the single/multiple jab(s)). Neither if these facts are true so it is up to an individual to make their own, reasoned judgment, do you understand?

unfortunately it is not possible for all people to make reasoned judgements.
You can show all the evidence you want to some people and they will never believe it.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7076

Parents need have no more fears about the triple vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella. A study of more than 30,000 children in Japan should put the final nail in the coffin of the claim that the MMR vaccine is responsible for the apparent rise in autism in recent years.

The study shows that in the city of Yokohama the number of children with autism continued to rise after the MMR vaccine was replaced with single vaccines. "The findings are resoundingly negative," says Hideo Honda of the Yokohama Rehabilitation Center.

In the UK, parents panicked and vaccination rates plummeted after gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield claimed in a 1998 study that MMR might trigger autism, although the study was based on just 12 children and later retracted by most of its co authors.

Soon the vaccine was being blamed for the apparent rise in autism, with Wakefield citing data from California, US (see graph). In some parts of the UK, the proportion of children receiving both doses of the MMR vaccine has dropped to 60%. This has led to a rise in measles outbreaks and fears of an epidemic.

Not one epidemiological study has revealed a link between the vaccine and autism. But until now they have all concentrated on what happened after MMR vaccination for children was introduced. Honda's is the first to look at the autism rate after the MMR vaccine has been withdrawn. Japan withdrew it in April 1993 following reports that the anti-mumps component was causing meningitis (it plans to introduce another version).

Sudden regression
With his colleagues Yasuo Shimizu and Michael Rutter of the Institute of Psychiatry in London, UK, Honda looked at the records of 31,426 children born in one district of Yokohama between 1988 and 1996. The team counted children diagnosed as autistic by the age of 7.

They found the cases continued to multiply after the vaccine withdrawal, ranging from 48 to 86 cases per 10,000 children before withdrawal to 97 to 161 per 10,000 afterwards. The same pattern was seen with a particular form of autism in which children appear to develop normally and then suddenly regress - the form linked to MMR by Wakefield.

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/01vol27/dr2708ea.html

MMR Vaccination and Autism

In 1998, a study by Wakefield and colleagues of the IBDSG, Royal Free Hospital, London, England, alleged a causal link between MMR vaccination and autism. From a case-series, Wakefield et al. describe the investigation of 12 consecutively referred children with gastrointestinal symptoms who were also diagnosed with autism(3). Parents or a physician had temporally linked the onset of behavioural symptoms to MMR vaccination in eight of 12 children, although four of the 12 children had behavioural problems before gastrointestinal symptom onset. The authors speculate that ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia (ILNH), a non-specific colitis, causes malabsorption of vitamins and nutrients, or an increase in gut permeability to protein, in either case leading to development of autism. The study had several major methodologic shortcomings including: a sample size too small to assess statistical significance, selection bias from use of a highly select patient population that was not generalizable, and absence of a control group. The study was highly susceptible to the recall bias of parental reporting, and the investigators were unable to provide corroborative microbiologic evidence to support their hypothesis. This study provides little evidence to support a hypothesis that MMR vaccination causes autism.

To address shortcomings of this case-series, the IBDSG subsequently included 48 additional cases along with the original 12 and also included 42 controls, who were referrals to their clinic, in whom IBD had been ruled out(4). This study suffers many of the methodologic limitations of the investigators' previous study, including selection bias in cases and in controls, failure to control for confounding variables, and failure to isolate measles virus from bowel tissue. In addition, cases and controls differed in their baseline characteristics and the study did not report the results of any statistical tests of association.

However, several population-based studies provide evidence that MMR vaccination is not associated with autism. Re-analysis of a population-based study by Gillberg et al. found no significant difference in autism after introducing MMR vaccine in Sweden(5). A population-based study by Taylor et al. investigated the MMR vaccination status of 498 autistic children in England. This study employed sound epidemiologic methods, particularly with respect to adequate sample size, thorough and consistent ascertainment of cases of autism and prior MMR immunization status, and appropriate analysis(6). An increase in cases of autism was noted by year of birth from 1979 to 1992; however, no incremental increase in cases was observed after the introduction of MMR vaccination. There was no difference in age of autism diagnosis and MMR vaccination status (relative incidence (RI) 0.94 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.60-1.47]) and there was no temporal clustering between onset of autism and MMR vaccination within the following 1 to 2 years (RI 1.09 [95% CI = 0.76-1.52]). Furthermore, Kaye et al. identified 305 children diagnosed with autism who were <= 12 years of age, from a general practice research database. A time trend analysis found no correlation between prevalence of MMR vaccination and the incidence of autism in each birth cohort from 1988 to 1993(7). Patja et al. reviewed surveillance reports of MMR vaccine-associated adverse events since 1982 in Finland. There were no reports of inflammatory bowel disease or autism over the study period, during which more than three million doses of MMR were administered. Vaccine adverse event reporting identifies acute events more easily(8). However, the likelihood of autism or IBD being reported as a vaccine adverse event is in all probability quite small. Finally, a review by Fombonne of published epidemiological surveys of autism between 1966 and 1998 found no reports of an association with inflammatory bowel disease, including Crohn's disease or with measles or mumps infections(9).


http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/347/19/1477

Background It has been suggested that vaccination against measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) is a cause of autism.

Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all children born in Denmark from January 1991 through December 1998. The cohort was selected on the basis of data from the Danish Civil Registration System, which assigns a unique identification number to every live-born infant and new resident in Denmark. MMR-vaccination status was obtained from the Danish National Board of Health. Information on the children's autism status was obtained from the Danish Psychiatric Central Register, which contains information on all diagnoses received by patients in psychiatric hospitals and outpatient clinics in Denmark. We obtained information on potential confounders from the Danish Medical Birth Registry, the National Hospital Registry, and Statistics Denmark.

Results Of the 537,303 children in the cohort (representing 2,129,864 person-years), 440,655 (82.0 percent) had received the MMR vaccine. We identified 316 children with a diagnosis of autistic disorder and 422 with a diagnosis of other autistic-spectrum disorders. After adjustment for potential confounders, the relative risk of autistic disorder in the group of vaccinated children, as compared with the unvaccinated group, was 0.92 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.24), and the relative risk of another autistic-spectrum disorder was 0.83 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.65 to 1.07). There was no association between the age at the time of vaccination, the time since vaccination, or the date of vaccination and the development of autistic disorder.

Conclusions This study provides strong evidence against the hypothesis that MMR vaccination causes autism.

downtroad, I'm aware of the studies and their findings, if you read my very first post on the subject I said I'm happy to give any kids I have the MMR jab. What I've been explaining for the last few pages, is why some people might not think like me/banesmabes/you/whoever, as this seemed to raise issues with some people in the thread.

P.S. Please don't copy & paste huge amounts of text to form your posts, it is difficult to read = it just gets ignored by everyone (= the message you were trying to portray gets lost). Plus it is also against the guidelines of the forum IIRC. Better to quote the bits you've highlighted and provde links to the full text so people can follow it if the want to. :) Besides, the BBC link given a few posts up has a nice summary ;)

unfortunately it is not possible for all people to make reasoned judgements.
You can show all the evidence you want to some people and they will never believe it.
That is a reasoned judgement mate. They have reasoned their way to their view based on what they've looked at, weighted accordingly, and decided upon. It's the process involved, not the outcome, that is reasoned. :)

You were thinking of reasonable I reckon. Again, what is a reasonable viewpoint to hold or decision ot make is argueably subjective wrt the current topic, as it's clearly not clear cut in everyone's minds.

downtroad, I'm aware of the studies and their findings, if you read my very first post on the subject I said I'm happy to give any kids I have the MMR jab. What I've been explaining for the last few pages, is why some people might not think like me/banesmabes/you/whoever, as this seemed to raise issues with some people in the thread.

P.S. Please don't copy & paste huge amounts of text to form your posts, it is difficult to read = it just gets ignored by everyone (= the message you were trying to portray gets lost). Plus it is also against the guidelines of the forum IIRC. Better to quote the bits you've highlighted and provde links to the full text so people can follow it if the want to. :) Besides, the BBC link given a few posts up has a nice summary ;)

Erm where exactly did i aim those posts at you?

And when did you become a mod? How do you know who reads what?

I am posting them as information for readers. Calm down you are getting far to personally offensive, it's just not needed. All this "you just don't get it" is just out of order.

That is a reasoned judgement mate. They have reasoned their way to their view based on what they've looked at, weighted accordingly, and decided upon. It's the process involved, not the outcome, that is reasoned. :)

You were thinking of reasonable I reckon. Again, what is a reasonable viewpoint to hold or decision ot make is argueably subjective wrt the current topic, as it's clearly not clear cut in everyone's minds.

Well if you use your definition then yes. But I would not apply your definition to reasoned opinion. And neither would many other people.

Well if you use your definition then yes. But I would not apply your definition to reasoned opinion. And neither would many other people.
Reasonable people would, and do! ;)

Erm where exactly did i aim those posts at you?

And when did you become a mod? How do you know who reads what?

I am posting them as information for readers. Calm down you are getting far to personally offensive, it's just not needed. All this "you just don't get it" is just out of order.
I haven't taken anything personally, I think, once again, you misunderstand. :hihi:

You don't need to be a mod to give out friendly advice. In order to know who reads what, read the FAQ, the guidelines on using the site, or simply use common sense. ;)

Where I stated that you didn't get it, I also apologised for me not being able to explain matters in a way that you would understand, so perhaps you would benefit from some of your own advice and "calm down" :thumbsup:

You are a peice of work Steve.

I have never misunderstood you, through the entire thread. I think you are confusing me with nightrider.

I understand you fully. You make half baked and completely irrelevant points that are off topic and really don't add a thing to the debate apart from being pedantic and rhetorical. You have also used straw men several time "ahh you just don't understand", "i don't know how else to put it so you understand" etc (these are not acurate quotes). Just stick to the points.

I suggest you read the thread again, and try to understand what nightrider is saying, and keep you advice on use of the forum to yourself. If the mods have a problem, i am sure they will tell me.

Now back on topic? Do you have any evidence to show this other school of thought? This other perception of the facts?

2 parts due to firewall issues....

You are a peice of work Steve.
:SupraSteve bows:
I have never misunderstood you, through the entire thread. I think you are confusing me with nightrider.
So I am, sincere apologies - it's been a long day. :)

I understand you fully. You make half baked and completely irrelevant points.....pedantic and rhetorical.
You obviously do NOT understand me fully, nor why I've said what I have said previously, otherwise you simply couldn't make such a comment. :)

...and keep you advice on use of the forum to yourself. If the mods have a problem, i am sure they will tell me.Fair enough, if you don't like friendly advice, that's your problem! :loopy: I won't point out where you're contravening good practice & manners again. Are you happy now?

Now back on topic? Do you have any evidence to show this other school of thought? This other perception of the facts?
You mean apart from the people that have posted in this thread giving the exact view that I've been explaining for the last 4 pages? :huh: Maybe that fact and their posts have passed you by? lol.

People are people, they will - like it or not - make their own decisions! What I find objectional is others deciding that their view is better or more correct than someone elses, and thus they should be belittled or repremanded for it - or have soundbites like 'it's more dangerous to have seperate injections than a combined MMR jab' thrown at them - utter tosh backed by precisely zero evidence (unless you count circumstantail evidence) to prove it! There is simply no need and THAT is what adds nothing to the debate sir.

Leaving aside whatever your issues are with the MMR jab, this is the problem everyone is getting on "high horse" about. People are getting a bit miffed with you because you aren't just risking your own childs life because of your inactivity, you are risking others lives. Pay for the three jabs or get the MMR done...please.

Fair enough, you've been spooked by three children that appear to have had a reaction to MMR - I might feel the same in your situation, and decide to go for the individual jabs. So get the three jabs done. Borrow the money, sell something, but get the jabs done. And As I said before - what's higher on your priority list? Got a mobile phone? get rid. Smoke? Stop. Sky TV? cancel.

If your so desperate for my son to get them done, you pay! My phones an old Nokia, worth about £5 (you remember 3210s?!!! I sold my previous phone to fund money for my sisters illness) I don't smoke, i never go out drinking and i have bog standard tv. People aren't getting miffed by me, you are!

Do you have children yourself?

Which is exactly the problem. Not just your child is at risk, but you are contributing to a growing problem that is leaving many children in danger when we will have an inevitable outbreak of a potentially fatal disease.

We are already having major outbreaks of Mumps in the unimmunised portion of the population (those slightly older than the first group of children to have had the MMR), we have had several outbreaks of measles (one child died in April).

There is a far higher chance of your child contracting measles than there is of them getting autism from MMR vaccine.

The way the government could stop this is to allow the singles to be available on the NHS or even cut the price down.

Here is a thought;

People are conserned about parents not getting their children immunised.

Parents are conserned (rightly or wrongly) about Autism. Not much is going to change their mind on that.

So make the seperate vaccines widely available on the NHS.

If you don't at least some of the blame falls on the NHS's lap for parents not immunising their children. Some parents cannot afford the seperate vaccines, so they will be tempted not to vaccinate.

:clap: here here :clap: this is what i keep saying but keep getting ignored!

I think the NHS may well end up offering the three separately on the NHS to protect the population as a whole. Having large numbers of kids unimmunised is a major risk.

The money is a false argument - what is more important than your own childs health? Clearly quite a few things for some people...we are hardly talking a large amount of cash.

I'm a single parent on benefits (fair enough going back to work in January so as soon as i am working i'll be able to afford it) BUT at the moment i survive on next to no money at all, how do you suppose i get this 'small amount' of cash together? Not eat, make my son live on beans on toast for 3 months?!!!!!

Thats not true. Having the 3 jabs separately introduces a time lag between immunisation potentially increasing the risk of infection. MMR removes such risk which is one of the reasons for moving to MMR I believe. The two choices are not therefore equal in risk.

My friends son contracted measles 2 weeks after having the MMR, the vacine is a live vaccine and so the risk of catching any of them, although small, can happen.

But that's just anecdotal evidence. What about the anecdotal evidence of most other people who know many children who have had MMR and who don't know any that have developed autism? If you dismiss that then you can't really say your anecdotal evidence is any better. The fact that there are a lot of un-immunised kids around is very scary and the thought that some parents make themselves feel better by using this as justification for not immunising their own kids shows a misunderstanding of the purpose of immunisation. I also have to question what is taking priority by insisting on single jabs, when there is no greater risk as with the MMR jab - the parent's piece of mind, or the child's health?

Are you seriously that dumb?!!! Can you not see that i am doing it both for myself and my son?!!! I don't want to risk it because of who i know with autism so therefore i don't want my son to get autism as it would change his life forever.

JESUS some people!!

Oh and by you going on and on about it been safe blah blah isn't going to change my mind, so what is the point in ramming it down my throat?

You mean apart from the people that have posted in this thread giving the exact view that I've been explaining for the last 4 pages? Maybe that fact and their posts have passed you by? lol.

I said “evidence” not people opinions.


People are people, they will - like it or not - make their own decisions! What I find objectional is others deciding that their view is better or more correct than someone elses, and thus they should be belittled or repremanded for it


I am sorry you find that objectionable. But when sombodies view is based on a study of 12 people, and somebody else’s view is based on a dozen studies including millions of case studies, then one persons view actually is better than another’s. And constantly you have railed through this thread about people understanding you (or lacking understanding) your attempted intellectual belittling, using straw men, somewhat contradicts your last statement.

or have soundbites like 'it's more dangerous to have seperate injections than a combined MMR jab' thrown at them - utter tosh backed by precisely zero evidence (unless you count circumstantail evidence) to prove it! There is simply no need and THAT is what adds nothing to the debate sir.


Firstly you have shown zero evidence to back up any of your assertions or opinions, so that rather hypocritical of you to say that. I agree with you on this subject, for the most part so you do not have to convince me. But to say that, while offering nothing yourself, is just not cricket old bean. There is actually some evidence for the MMR being more effective than the single, for instance this World Health Organization study that highlights the Mumps epidemics in Japan and Switzerland who use the single shots (http://whqlibdoc.who.int/bulletin/1999/Vol77-No1/bulletin_1999_77(1)_3-14.pdf).

But as you keep saying people are people and they will believe what they want to, even when they are faced with strong studies. One thing you do hear by people, who fear the MMR, is that studies are tainted by special interests and big pharama. This is ironic, because Wakefield was actually paid by parents trying to sue Pharmaceutical companies. Now I am no fan of Pharmaceutical companies, but it goes to highlight the hypocrisy of the debate in general and while this debate rages on, children suffer.

:clap: here here :clap: this is what i keep saying but keep getting ignored!

I do agree tinkerbel, we disagree on MMR but i beleive you as a parent should have that choice and it should be free on the NHS. :)

once again, several parts...firewalls...pah....

I said “evidence” not people opinions.
You said "evidence of this other school of thought", and [evidence of] "This other perception of the facts?"
You did not ask for evidence that this 'other school of thought' was right. Just for the record, I've never said it was; furthermore, I've never said either school of thought are 'right'! :)
The strongest opinion I've expressed regarding my views on the subject is that I'd have no worries giving the MMR jab to any kids I may have.

I am sorry you find that objectionable. But when sombodies view is based on a study of 12 people, and somebody else’s view is based on a dozen studies including millions of case studies, then one persons view actually is better than another’s.
I wasn't talking about the scientific viewpoints; I agree that a selective study (especially one since discredited by it's own author!) present dubious results at best. I was talking more about those who attacked tinkabel and those who shared her views on the matter. She is perfectly within her rights to make her own conclusion that single jabs are in a better interest for her son. Why would anyone have any complaint with that decision? (ok, the delay is a concern, but we all - tinkabel included - recognise that.) I'd understand if she were saying not immunising at all were the best thing to do, but she isn't.

...your attempted intellectual belittling....
I haven't done, and wouldn't do, anything of the sort. If anyone believes I was belittling them I am happy to make an apology. :)
I admit I have made a couple of comments tongue-in-cheek which may have misled some readers, but that'is often the nature of the internet forum. All my serious comments have been explained properly and fully, although why you feel I need to justify myself to you I don't know. :roll:

Firstly you have shown zero evidence to back up any of your assertions or opinions
I haven't given any assertations or opions other than people will make their ownviews on contencious matters such as this - oh, and that there is no study (certainly none that I'm aware of) that concludes that the single jabs are more 'dangerous' than MMR combined.

There is actually some evidence for the MMR being more effective than the single....
I agree with that reports conclusions.

But as you keep saying people are people and they will believe what they want to, even when they are faced with strong studies. One thing you do hear by people, who fear the MMR, is that studies are tainted by special interests and big pharama. This is ironic, because Wakefield was actually paid by parents trying to sue Pharmaceutical companies. Now I am no fan of Pharmaceutical companies, but it goes to highlight the hypocrisy of the debate in general and while this debate rages on, children suffer.
I agree. :nod:

I haven't done, and wouldn't do, anything of the sort. If anyone believes I was belittling them I am happy to make an apology. :)
I admit I have made a couple of comments tongue-in-cheek which may have misled some readers, but that'is often the nature of the internet forum. All my serious comments have been explained properly and fully, although why you feel I need to justify myself to you I don't know. :roll:


I haven't given any assertations or opions other than people will make their ownviews on contencious matters such as this - oh, and that there is no study (certainly none that I'm aware of) that concludes that the single jabs are more 'dangerous' than MMR combined.

Ok cool anyway no need to continue our meta discussion, lets get back to origional issue. We mainly agree on the topic at hand anyway. :)

The report i posted from WHO says that the single seems to be less effective due to the strain used. Presumably this would be fixed by using a different strain. While i would not use the term "more dangerous" i guess (and it is just a guess) thats what the poster was trying to say.

Also get that firewall sorted ;)

Ok cool anyway no need to continue our meta discussion, lets get back to origional issue. We mainly agree on the topic at hand anyway. :)

The report i posted from WHO says that the single seems to be less effective due to the strain used. Presumably this would be fixed by using a different strain. While i would not use the term "more dangerous" i guess (and it is just a guess) thats what the poster was trying to say.

Also get that firewall sorted ;)
Can't - it's works - I'm still here :( lol

Is the single jab vaccine a live strain or not? Tinkabel said that the MMR jab is, which is part of her concern in using it. I wonder if it makes any difference - both to the degree of subsequent immunisation and to the chances of anything 'bad' happening (I'm speaking generally here and ignoring autism as I think that link is bobbins).

Can't - it's works - I'm still here :( lol

Is the single jab vaccine a live strain or not? Tinkabel said that the MMR jab is, which is part of her concern in using it. I wonder if it makes any difference - both to the degree of subsequent immunisation and to the chances of anything 'bad' happening (I'm speaking generally here and ignoring autism as I think that link is bobbins).

Well you have bigger problems than your firewall if you are still at work! :)

Yeah i beleive they are all live strains. From my experiance peoples reluctance about MMR's falls in to two categories;

1) Over heating of the immune system with three vaccines at one time.
2) Therimosol, the Mercury based preservative.

Well you have bigger problems than your firewall if you are still at work! :)
Tell me about it. Not much over 6 hours sleep last night cos I didn't finish till 1:something AM and I was back here at 7:something AM! :loopy:
Plus there is some sort of devil creature outside below my office window making an odd sound like it's waiting for me. Ah well it'll make the cycle home (with no lights, doh!) even more interesting :D :D :D

Anyway!.....
Yeah i beleive they are all live strains. From my experiance peoples reluctance about MMR's falls in to two categories;

1) Over heating of the immune system with three vaccines at one time.
2) Therimosol, the Mercury based preservative.
Understandable concerns, at least on the face of it. What are your views on them?

Regarding overheating the immune system, I have inadvertently done that twice before, but that's another story, lol.

Understandable concerns, at least on the face of it. What are your views on them?



For sure they are, as you said when ever it is a child just about anything is.

Well myself and my wife own a not for profit for kids with Autism. So we come in to contact with quiet a few families with Autistic kids. There are many Autistic kids that have had no vaccine at all, let alone the MMR.

The big issue here in the US is the Mercury preservative, not so much the MMR combined, as seems to be a bigger worry to parents in England. Again the research seems show no link.

Personally, my own opinion is some forms of Autism in the spectrum could be caused by some form of heavy metal poisoning, combined with a genetic problem secreting heavy metals form the body.

Some of the more recent research shows that Children with Autism have lower levels of Mercury in the Hair than baseline and higher levels in the teeth. Which does seem to show an issue with secretion. However my personal view is that this Mercury is environmental and is transferred via the umbilical chord, prior to birth.

Remember we can currently only diagnose Autism at age 2-3, because that’s when the social signs (lack of eye contact etc) are more visible. This is also when the children are getting vaccinated; so many parents link the two, which was the flaw in Wakefield’s study. My point being it seems the damage could well be done in the womb. Doctors advise parents not to eat Tuna when you are pregnant as there is too much Mercury in it, and this is Methyl Mercury, not Ethyl Mercury as found in vaccines. Methyl is far more neuro toxic and studies have been done checking random sampling of umbilical chords and they found that many woman have unsafe levels of Mercury in their system at birth, couple this with an genetic intolerance and we may have a causation for some of the cases in the Autistic Spectrum, some others like Aspersers are likely entirely genetic.

But you know I fully agree with you that the NHS should not be forcing the MMR on parents. We have seen some will choose just not to give the vaccine. So they should offer the choice, we cannot just blame the parents for not taking giving the vaccine, we should also partly blame the NHS IMHO.

That's very interesting regarding the research into mercury levels in the hair/teeth - is the different raio always the case with kids with autism? Do you know how many kids were in the study (both with & without austism)? Is this something that could be an early sign of autism, as it is much easier to measure (and independant of the child's maturity) than social interation of course.

I wasn't aware exactly how autism was diagnosed until now, but did wonder if it was something that could only be spotted at roughly the same sort of time the MMJ jab is due. Although that could (and probably does) account for a huge number of cases where parents think the jab itself is to blame for a child 'getting' autism within a few weeks I also know from speaking with a few parents that they are still concerned by the reports/stories where an apparent 'drastic' change occured almost 'immediately' after a child had the combined jab.

It's no wonder people still have some fears about MMR after reading/hearing stories like that (^^^) - even if they doubt their sincerity - and would rather play it safe with single shots....
How would you explain these reports;
- pure coincidence,
- the child wasn't as active and bright as the parents thought - they didn't spot autism until it was diagnosed for them perhaps
- or is there a tiny chance that there could be something (e.g. the Mercury) in MMR that is enough to tip the balance and trigger an existing underlying condition, maybe?

I don't know what I think, I totally understand parent's concerns regarding such stories and don't look forward to the day I might be in that potentially agonising decision point myself, but at the same time I take the 'drastic change' stories with a huge pinch of salt - news sells, after all. :|

Why is a person putting ther child's health/"life"(!!) at an increased risk if they go for the single jabs as apposed to the MMJ combined??

I didn't say that. They are putting their children at risk by not getting them immunised, or delaying in getting them immunised because they insist on the single vaccine.


- you've decided that this logical conclusion is that MMR is safer than single jabs (that's the first time I've heard that stated anywhere) - but you are contradicting yourself because earlier you stated that single vaccines "are no different to MMR".?

Again, you misquote me. I have not said that MMR is safer than single jabs. I have said that there is no evidence that MMR and single jabs are any different with regard to autism.

NB: It is wrong to assume that there is a single logical answer to the choices a parent faces (and that logical conclusion is to get MMR over single jabs). You cannot draw that conclusion unless EVERY detail of the comparison between MMR & single jabs is the same and EVERY statistic matches (e.g. X.X% of children were hit with autism regardless of if they had the single/multiple jab(s)). Neither if these facts are true so it is up to an individual to make their own, reasoned judgment, do you understand?

Please don't talk to me in a patronising tone. If a parent still wants single vaccines, despite the overwhealming evidence then that's up to them. But they should pay for it, and they have a duty to the rest of society to get their child vaccinated at the same time as they would have received MMR. I don't understand what the fuss is about access to these vaccines. They are there if you want them enough.

I do agree tinkerbel, we disagree on MMR but i beleive you as a parent should have that choice and it should be free on the NHS. :)

Why should it be free on the NHS? MMR is as effective and safe as single vaccines, but is more cost effective. The NHS has a duty to be cost effective. As a taxpayer I certainly wouldn't be happy to see the NHS funding these jabs. If a parent wants these jabs, then they should pay for them.

MMR is safer than the individually administered vaccines.

Why should the NHS supply multiple single vaccines when it has a perfectly safe and equally effective triple vaccine which costs less? It's also less likely to 'overload' or 'overheat' the immune system than singly administered vaccines

The risks of combining singly administered vaccines are not very well known, as they've never been deployed for public health in this way. No research exists that establishes whether serial vaccination is safe or not. Unlike MMR.

Also singly adminstered vaccines:
-Leave the child unimmunized for longer (greater risk)
-Have a much lower compliance record. (more children are inadequately immunised - greater risk)
-Subject the child to three times as many injections, tripling the infection and misadministration risks.

I didn't say that.
Whilst we were talking about why some peope choose single jabs over MMR, and why people make that decision, you said...
Ok, some people are just not logical when it comes to forming an opinion. But when people are putting their kids, and other people's kids, at risk from their ill-informed opinions then it is well worth trying to explain some logic to them.
...so apologies if I've misunderstood and you were actually talking about zero immunisation as an option - I thought we were discussing MMR Vs single jabs. If that is the case, then it should be pretty clear that I agree with you - zero immunisation is plainly stupid.


Out of interest, at what age do kids get immunised for M, M & R? I understand it's when they're 1~2~3 years old - does anyone know why it isn't sooner, is there some reason they arent' considered 'at risk' at that point or isn't their immune system fully ready for the vaccine? :confused:

Also, what is the purpose of the Ethyl Mercury in the MMR vaccine? Presumably it's something to do with it's transport into the blood or perhaps it acts like a preservative for the live vaccine?

Yes, I was referring to immunising Vs not immunising/delaying immunisation.

Have just found an interesting leaflet on this issue:

http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/resources/pdf/sheet2.pdf#search=%22mmr%20cost%20nhs%20single%20v accines%22

Why should it be free on the NHS? MMR is as effective and safe as single vaccines, but is more cost effective. The NHS has a duty to be cost effective. As a taxpayer I certainly wouldn't be happy to see the NHS funding these jabs. If a parent wants these jabs, then they should pay for them.
I don't think they shoud be free, but I do think they should be available via the NHS (at cost price or at the difference in cost price compared to MMR). I know this would send out a mixed message about the safety of MMR but it's the lessor of two evils. By providing such a service it would help avoid/reduce the situation we currently have where significant numbers of parents are deciding it's too much hassle to find an outlet for the single jabs and instead are ignoring immunisation against M, M & R completely, thus risking very serious consequences for their child and potentially, an outbreak. :(

Have just found an interesting leaflet on this issue:

http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/resources/pdf/sheet2.pdf#search=%22mmr%20cost%20nhs%20single%20v accines%22
This bit is certainly interesting...

"....every independent expert group supports the use of MMR, and none support the use of single vaccines, there is no justification for a course of action that has a good chance of protecting fewer children, not more."

I am torn between my previous comment (my post immediately above) and what (my version of) logic & reasoning tells me;

Is it worse to offer what studies believe to be a seond rate service (3 jabs, compared to MMR) than have people refuse immunisation all together?

I can see why the NHS takes the stance it does, and would do the same if I were in charge, but if it is a stance that results in less people being protected.... :|

That leaflet is brilliant though at answering almost every question a parent could have. :)

That's very interesting regarding the research into mercury levels in the hair/teeth - is the different raio always the case with kids with autism? Do you know how many kids were in the study (both with & without austism)? Is this something that could be an early sign of autism, as it is much easier to measure (and independant of the child's maturity) than social interation of course.

In the studies done it has always been the case, but they are limited. There is a bigger baby tooth project underway which will be more conclusive. Also higher levels of Autisms have been seen in areas of Texas and California near Mercury mines. It’s not just high levels so it wont help with a test as there is certainly a genetic factor at play. That will enable a test.


I wasn't aware exactly how autism was diagnosed until now, but did wonder if it was something that could only be spotted at roughly the same sort of time the MMJ jab is due. Although that could (and probably does) account for a huge number of cases where parents think the jab itself is to blame for a child 'getting' autism within a few weeks I also know from speaking with a few parents that they are still concerned by the reports/stories where an apparent 'drastic' change occured almost 'immediately' after a child had the combined jab.

Unfortunately the diagnosis procedure is not 100% objective. Which is why there has been so much misdiagnosis. There is a small amount of the Spectrum called regressive Autism, where it does appear that the children do get worse. But its worth noting this is a small subsection and the regression can start at varying ages. This also could be a reason some parents believe it coincides with MMR.

Why should it be free on the NHS? MMR is as effective and safe as single vaccines, but is more cost effective. The NHS has a duty to be cost effective. As a taxpayer I certainly wouldn't be happy to see the NHS funding these jabs. If a parent wants these jabs, then they should pay for them.

Sorry by free i mean the regular charge for a prescriptioon. I don't think parents should be paying 300 pounds for it. The reason i say this is because parensts are just not giving their kids MMR, so anything to at least get them to immunise is a good idea. And if that means making the single shots available, in instances where the parenst will not give their children MMR, then so be it. The health of the wider community than the principal in my view.

MMR is safer than the individually administered vaccines.

Why should the NHS supply multiple single vaccines when it has a perfectly safe and equally effective triple vaccine which costs less? It's also less likely to 'overload' or 'overheat' the immune system than singly administered vaccines

The risks of combining singly administered vaccines are not very well known, as they've never been deployed for public health in this way. No research exists that establishes whether serial vaccination is safe or not. Unlike MMR.

Also singly adminstered vaccines:
-Leave the child unimmunized for longer (greater risk)
-Have a much lower compliance record. (more children are inadequately immunised - greater risk)
-Subject the child to three times as many injections, tripling the infection and misadministration risks.

This is all great in a perfect world. We don't live in that world. Over the past several years all this research has been done, but we are still seeing far lower immunization rates in Children, all over the World (I blame the internet). And that’s how epidemics happen. So does the NHS sit back and say "silly parents they don't know the facts" and deal with the epidemic? Or is it more proactive in two areas, education and while that is working giving the choice. I worry about a mutation or stronger strain, which is why getting those immunization figures back up again is so important.

The details in the leaflet about Whooping Cough and what happened following a similar scare when the NHS DID allow parents a choice about vaccines related to Whooping Cough is interesting. The NHS would be sending out a huge mixed message if they allow access to single jabs. Many people would read that as "there must be something wrong with MMR". When actually the experience with whooping cough (where choice was given) led to a decreased uptake, a whooping cough epidemic and the deaths of 100 children.

Why should it be free on the NHS? MMR is as effective and safe as single vaccines, but is more cost effective. The NHS has a duty to be cost effective. As a taxpayer I certainly wouldn't be happy to see the NHS funding these jabs. If a parent wants these jabs, then they should pay for them.

Are you a parent?

This is all great in a perfect world. We don't live in that world. Over the past several years all this research has been done, but we are still seeing far lower immunization rates in Children, all over the World (I blame the internet).
I blame the doctor who started the whole thing in order to create more sales of single vaccines for the company he was acting for.

And that’s how epidemics happen. So does the NHS sit back and say "silly parents they don't know the facts" and deal with the epidemic? Or is it more proactive in two areas, education and while that is working giving the choice. I worry about a mutation or stronger strain, which is why getting those immunization figures back up again is so important.

Those aren't the only two choices though.

Are you a parent?

No. But don't start rabitting on about how I couldn't possibly know what it's like. I plan to have children sooner rather than later, and wouldn't hesitate to get them immunised with MMR. I am also very close to my sister who has two young children. The eldest has just had MMR and it wasn't even an issue. I wouldn't want to see any harm come to her, but that was never going to happen with MMR. It was just another vaccination she needed.

surely if the jabs are given individually then you are leaving your child at risk of contracting one of the illnesses in the mean time....?